SF Guarneri Homage audition gone wrong ... then a silver lining

[schaefer11]

Alberto, along with Pete, I can understand why you would enjoy the sound of the system when using the tone controls and loudness control. You simply accentuated the lower frequencies that your ears are less sensitive to, which I am certain you were aware of.

My meager system has a feature in the Audyssey room processing called Dynamic EQ, which performs the loudness function variably and automatically depending on the volume setting. When listening at my usual 65-75 db levels, it makes a world of difference in the balance of the frequency spectrum.

I think you'll find that the makers of early equipment, designed with things such as tone controls and loudness controls, actually knew a thing or two about how people actually listened to their equipment and how to help them get the most enjoyment out of it. For some reason, it has become more fashionable to do this by swapping out cables and such and pretending that this is giving you a more pure sound than using tone controls.

I hope you enjoy your newfound "back to basics" experience.

[metaphacts]

Originally Posted by 1KW

Alberto I think you may want to start with a new pre amp/amp; maybe you should buy Serge's 2 month old MC2301's ? I can tell you they are mint, mint new and sound amazing . Sometimes all you need is a new pre amp, since I put the C2300 in my system it has put a big smile on my face. I had a C220 like you for several years and it was not bad sounding, in fact I thought it did make a nice combo with the 501's but it was quite noisey in comparison, even with tele tubes installed especially in the phono section . The C220 imaging was much more 2 dimensional compared to the C2300 . The background with the C2300 is pure black. I am not saying you have to stay with Mcintosh but if you like the Fisher maybe a new tube pre amp is a good starting place ? As far as Metaphacts comment about the 501's, they sound wonderful with my Elipsa's and play very nice together. Imaging is fantastic, a strong crisp bottom end, a very musical midrange with just enough detail to feel real .

2301s would be a great choice for Guarneri Homage.

As far as 501s playing with Elipsas, why wouldn't they? Elipsas are nothing like Guarneri Homage in terms of the load presented to the amplifier. Two completely different people designed the Elipsa and the Guarneri over 10 years apart using different drivers, crossover parts and topologies. Elipsa, though extremely revealing, is relatively easy for most amplifiers. Guarneri Homage is the most difficult match of all the Sonus speakers short of Extrema.

To re-emphasize: I am not saying that 501s are flawed because they are not an ideal match with Guarneri Homage or that Guarneri Homage is too revealing or something silly like that. What I am saying is that 501s sing more sweetly on another speaker (such as your Elipsas) and that Guarneris would be sweeter, fuller, more linearly dynamic with a different amp, say the 2301s you suggested. It's purely a matching issue, not a quality one.

I wasn't kidding in Alberto's earlier thread when I suggested getting a used Musica either. But then if Alberto had a Musica when the potential buyer showed up, he wouldn't still have his Guarneris. They'd have been gone in a heartbeat.

[BlueChiaro]

Originally Posted by metaphacts

As you prefer ample bottom, surely you know that one of history's greatest fans of the more naturally shaped bottom end, Flemish painter Peter Paul Rubens, had his life completely changed by his Italian experiences. Just sayin'.

I really, REALLY thought you were going to link to howiebrou's avatar...

[metaphacts]

Originally Posted by schaefer11

I think you'll find that the makers of early equipment, designed with things such as tone controls and loudness controls, actually knew a thing or two about how people actually listened to their equipment and how to help them get the most enjoyment out of it. For some reason, it has become more fashionable to do this by swapping out cables and such and pretending that this is giving you a more pure sound than using tone controls.

Much wisdom here.

However, while cables certainly have their own flavor, they tend to do far less sculpting than any tone control. I would contend that if a bit more time was spent in getting a speaker properly located in the room (and all that implies), cables choices would become more stable (unless you're a hunting kind of audiophile). If you then did choose to use tone controls/eq, the amount of compensation would be slight.

Years ago when Mark Levinson (the man) introduced the Cello Palette, the improvements in a top notch system could be quite rewarding, even if the changes rendered on the controls were minimal. Ironic when you consider that Mark was at the leading edge of eliminating tone controls almost a decade and a half earlier.

[metaphacts]

Originally Posted by BlueChiaro

I really, REALLY thought you were going to link to howiebrou's avatar...

[T-3G]

Originally Posted by schaefer11

Alberto, along with Pete, I can understand why you would enjoy the sound of the system when using the tone controls and loudness control. You simply accentuated the lower frequencies that your ears are less sensitive to, which I am certain you were aware of.

My meager system has a feature in the Audyssey room processing called Dynamic EQ, which performs the loudness function variably and automatically depending on the volume setting. When listening at my usual 65-75 db levels, it makes a world of difference in the balance of the frequency spectrum.

I think you'll find that the makers of early equipment, designed with things such as tone controls and loudness controls, actually knew a thing or two about how people actually listened to their equipment and how to help them get the most enjoyment out of it. For some reason, it has become more fashionable to do this by swapping out cables and such and pretending that this is giving you a more pure sound than using tone controls.

I hope you enjoy your newfound "back to basics" experience.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Tone and loudness controls are required to compensate for specific room acoustics and the listening level. Also, we all know that music that are contained in the CD's are all "Photoshopped," meaning, they had gone through tremendous amount of digital processing - tone controls, limiters, compressors, digital effects, digital touch-ups, etc. - to the taste of a particular balance engineer. We don't have to agree with him. If you think your music needs a boost in the lows, use the tone control. I am particularly annoyed by the fact that modern manufactures choose to ditch tone and loudness controls for silly reasons like you stated.

[Jerome W]

Very interesting post Alberto ! Thanks !

I do believe also that high end vintage products have a unique sonic touch.
Compared to the sound of today, of course, this vintage sound has many limitations and shortcomings BUT, the pleasure some can have with it, can be very high and not related to the "absolute" performance.
They have their own charm.

In a french McIntosh dedicated forum, many guys swear only by old Mcs and don't appreciate as much the new products. They say that the company made a turn during the late 90's. They admit the old products are less transparent but they don't look for transparency. They look like you, for the delicious sound. In their words, a MC500 or a MC1000 are much much better than the 501's and the 1.2kWs of today, not to mention the MC240, original MC30, MC60, and they also prefer much more the original MC275 to its modern version.

A friend of mine explains this to me by education and memory. He thinks that the ones who are attracted by the sound of vintage gear, have associated this sound they heard maybe only once in their childhood, with happiness, sweetness and so on. Vintage products are also a journey to the past, with all the psychological matters behind that.
Some could also be tired of "high resolution". You're a great photograph apart from being a great audiophile, so you will understand what I mean.

This is an example of my personal experience with vintage gear :
I have a MR77 and a MR85, both connected to the C1000P.
The MR77 is more "delicious" than the 85. Clear cut.
The 85 is much more sensitive, transparent, neutral. I get a signal 9 in stereo with almost all stations, while I don't get more than a 6 on the 77.
The bass of the 77 is less tight, more muddy.
An analytic description would give the 85 a victory by knock out over the 77.
But my ears are happier with the 77.
Go figure....

To go back to the SF chapter, I would second the opinions many stated here.
KEEP THEM !!! either with the Fischer if you're happy like that, or with other electronics, but KEEP THEM !!!

Cheers,

[Alberto]

Originally Posted by C220MC275

...
But my ears are happier with the 77.
Go figure....

To go back to the SF chapter, I would second the opinions many stated here.
KEEP THEM !!! either with the Fischer if you're happy like that, or with other electronics, but KEEP THEM !!!

Cheers,

Jerome,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. It's always good to be reminded that there are many people out there who appreciate and prefer - at least sometime - the virtues/faults of vintage equipment.

I love the way you ended "But my ears are happier with the 77" - that's a great way of putting it: happy ears! I know exactly how you feel.

As far as the SFGH - the forum is pretty unanimous that I should keep them.

Take care my friend and enjoy that MR77 (I have an MR80 which I also enjoy a lot).

Alberto

[Vintage Pete]

Originally Posted by C220MC275

Very interesting post Alberto ! Thanks !

I do believe also that high end vintage products have a unique sonic touch.
Compared to the sound of today, of course, this vintage sound has many limitations and shortcomings BUT, the pleasure some can have with it, can be very high and not related to the "absolute" performance.
They have their own charm.

In a french McIntosh dedicated forum, many guys swear only by old Mcs and don't appreciate as much the new products. They say that the company made a turn during the late 90's. They admit the old products are less transparent but they don't look for transparency. They look like you, for the delicious sound. In their words, a MC500 or a MC1000 are much much better than the 501's and the 1.2kWs of today, not to mention the MC240, original MC30, MC60, and they also prefer much more the original MC275 to its modern version.

A friend of mine explains this to me by education and memory. He thinks that the ones who are attracted by the sound of vintage gear, have associated this sound they heard maybe only once in their childhood, with happiness, sweetness and so on. Vintage products are also a journey to the past, with all the psychological matters behind that.
Some could also be tired of "high resolution". You're a great photograph apart from being a great audiophile, so you will understand what I mean.

This is an example of my personal experience with vintage gear :
I have a MR77 and a MR85, both connected to the C1000P.
The MR77 is more "delicious" than the 85. Clear cut.
The 85 is much more sensitive, transparent, neutral. I get a signal 9 in stereo with almost all stations, while I don't get more than a 6 on the 77.
The bass of the 77 is less tight, more muddy.
An analytic description would give the 85 a victory by knock out over the 77.
But my ears are happier with the 77.
Go figure....

To go back to the SF chapter, I would second the opinions many stated here.
KEEP THEM !!! either with the Fischer if you're happy like that, or with other electronics, but KEEP THEM !!!

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Alberto

Jerome,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. It's always good to be reminded that there are many people out there who appreciate and prefer - at least sometime - the virtues/faults of vintage equipment.

I love the way you ended "But my ears are happier with the 77" - that's a great way of putting it: happy ears! I know exactly how you feel.

As far as the SFGH - the forum is pretty unanimous that I should keep them.

Take care my friend and enjoy that MR77 (I have an MR80 which I also enjoy a lot).

Alberto

Gentlemen.....enjoy that delicious sound from your MR77's and MR80's, as the case may be. I own both of these, (along with an MR78) and I thoroughly enjoy them. They are simply "delicious!

Pete

[Vintage Pete]

Originally Posted by schaefer11

Alberto, along with Pete, I can understand why you would enjoy the sound of the system when using the tone controls and loudness control. You simply accentuated the lower frequencies that your ears are less sensitive to, which I am certain you were aware of.

There were a few vintage loudness contols that also accentuated some of the higher frequencies, along with the low. My original Crown IC-150 preamp was an example. I think their thinking was that the ear was also less sensitive to the higher frequencies at lower volume levels. The loudness button on that preamp was "delicious". When the newer IC-150A was released, the loudness button only boosted the lows.

Originally Posted by schaefer11

I think you'll find that the makers of early equipment, designed with things such as tone controls and loudness controls, actually knew a thing or two about how people actually listened to their equipment and how to help them get the most enjoyment out of it. For some reason, it has become more fashionable to do this by swapping out cables and such and pretending that this is giving you a more pure sound than using tone controls.

Very true. Not to slam the "cable camp" at all...I believe that higher quality cables can, and do, enable us to hear "deeper" into the music, and get more enjoyment out of it. But you still have room interactions, poor recordings, and differences in personal taste. This has alway been true, and always will be. Cables cannot deal with these issues. They never have, and they never will.



Pete